BREAK OVER!
OK, the holidays are officially over. After my brief hiatus from the blogosphere, I think it's about time I get back into the mix. The problem is, I just don't know where to start. Sure, I could join the Frey and post something about "Blago/Burres/Obama-gate", but really...who cares? And who's really surprised anyway. I could post something about Israel going into Gaza. But once you've said "It's about friggn' time", what more is there to say? Instead of writing yet another op-ed about the world of politics, today I'm opting to touch on something a little more...cultural.
The week prior to Christmas I was in the middle of my traditional last minute approach to ruining the true meaning of the season by giving-in to the shameless commercialism that the Savior's birthday has now become, when I had an epiphany. There are too many idiots in this world. I'm not talking about the "common" brand of idiot; people who drive a Prius, fat people that drink 72 oz. diet sodas, or Obama voters. No, I'm talking about the new level of idiot known as the "self mutilator".
As I was searching the shelves of a well-known book store chain trying to find a children's version of "A Christmas Carol" I was approached by one of the employees who asked if he could help me find something. One look at this individual nearly caused me to reply "Yes, you can help me find my faith in humanity's ability to survive your generation's presence". But tis' the season, so I politely said "No" and went my merry way.
I would best describe this "person" as a parent's nightmare, adorned with all manner of tattoo, piercing and surgical modification. Beyond his "Flock of Seagulls" hair and his "flock of demented retards" clothes, his face was the most distracting...and depressing. His speech was afflicted by a tongue piercing, and his ears were weighted down with giant bolt-like hardware that protruded through holes the size of silver dollars in his earlobes. This was accented by a nose and eyebrow piercing. Despite his polite and helpfull manner, I couldn't help but wonder if it would be safe to give this individual access to my credit card. After all, according to his self inflicted "look at me" kit, judgement did not seem to be one of his priorities.
Before some of you label me "narrow minded" or "out of touch", consider this. Other than deep seated emotional issues or questionable psychological status, what drives a person to go to such lengths to draw attention to themselves? As a blogger and author, I want attention as much as the next guy, that is unless that "next guy" happens to have a bone in his nose and some sort of demon tattooed on his neck.
Judgement is a lost art. Fewer people practice it now more than ever, and our society is suffering the effects. When people act out like this, there is a message that they are sending to us. They are telling us that their parents dropped the ball somewhere along the line. That forces you to ask what else about this person did those parents drop the ball on? What other judgement issues are beyond this person's ability to comprehend? Can these people really be trusted to serve me and my family in a professional manner? If they are willing to disfigure themselves for the sake expression or attention, what else are they capable of when no one is looking?
This also says something about the people who are willing to hire these weirdos. Do they have no pride in their own business? If not, what else do they not give a crap about? Are they more concerned with looking "tolerant" than keeping a valuable customer base? Are they trying to make some sort of statement by hiring people with mental issues?
Is there anything "wrong" with this type of behavior. Probably not. But it does speak volumes about you when you are so uncomfortable in your own skin that you think it's a good idea to puncture it for no good reason.
I never did find the book I was looking for. But I did find my way to a bookstore where I didn't have to worry about losing my appetite...or my credit rating.
Tuesday, January 6, 2009
Sunday, December 21, 2008
THE CASE FOR PARTISANSHIP
If we (at least some of us) have learned nothing in the past few years, it should be that reaching across the isle is an exercise in futility. Call it "bi-partisanship", the "new tone", or just plain old civility, when you set out to make a compromise for the sake of "getting something done" you will always come up on the short end of the stick.
First, let's look at the word compromise. From our first years on this planet, we are taught that compromising is a good way to settle a dispute and work out differences. I disagree.
I have found that in most instances life presents us, whenever their is a dispute, only one party is correct in their assertions or assessments. Occasionally, both parties might be wrong, but after careful examination of the facts and evidence available, rarely are both parties right.
That means in order to make a fair compromise, one party is required to be a little more right, but another party is required to be a little more wrong.
Imagine two firemen arguing about how best to put out a fire. One fireman suggests that they throw water on the fire. The other fireman disagrees and suggests that they throw gasoline on the fire. They "compromise" and decide to throw both water and gasoline on the fire, all in an effort to get "something" done. Though the guy who compromised toward water is now a little more correct, he still throws his share of gasoline on the fire along with his compromise share of water.
The guy who was actually right in the beginning has acquiesced, and is now obligated to throw his compromise share of gasoline on the now raging inferno. The end result is the death of both firemen and an out of control fire that is now left to others to put out.
Had the party who knew he was right stood his ground, both firefighters would still be alive today. Unfortunately, he decided to engage in a "new tone", and by default he compromised his principals and everything he ever leaned about fighting fires. And for what?
He lived in a world where being wrong was no longer something to be embarrassed about. Media outlets commonly gave as much air time to those who were clueless as they did with with those who used common sense. There was no longer shame attached to being wrong. In fact, people were taught at an early age that every one is an equal and criticism is actually "hate speech". So now, even though he was right, it was acceptable in some circles to throw gas on a fire. So the other guy was considered to be equally qualified to make decisions and never questioned, nuch less ridiculed for being an idiot. When he spoke out, he was pressured to give in for the sake of getting something done.
Too bad for us that this mentality has infected our allegedly representative democracy. Our elected officials are more worried about being called a "zealot" or a "partisan" than they are about what actually happens to our country. Standing up for the principals that have a time tested track record of success and prosperity is no longer an option. If it doesn't bring high numbers in a focus group or opinion pole, it doesn't see the light of day.
Why do we do this? Do we ever get anything for our attempts to "reach across the isle"? No. Unless you count a bloody stump. Democrats learned this lesson decades ago, but we continue to insist on taking a punch and asking for another. In an age where it is getting harder and harder to tell a Republican from a Democrat, I can't help but wonder why we even have a party anymore.
Until we are willing to stand up for what we know is right and start dropping some ideological nukes on the liberal establishment, we are going to continue to lose elections and probably the nation as a whole. I'm looking at you John McCain!
If we (at least some of us) have learned nothing in the past few years, it should be that reaching across the isle is an exercise in futility. Call it "bi-partisanship", the "new tone", or just plain old civility, when you set out to make a compromise for the sake of "getting something done" you will always come up on the short end of the stick.
First, let's look at the word compromise. From our first years on this planet, we are taught that compromising is a good way to settle a dispute and work out differences. I disagree.
I have found that in most instances life presents us, whenever their is a dispute, only one party is correct in their assertions or assessments. Occasionally, both parties might be wrong, but after careful examination of the facts and evidence available, rarely are both parties right.
That means in order to make a fair compromise, one party is required to be a little more right, but another party is required to be a little more wrong.
Imagine two firemen arguing about how best to put out a fire. One fireman suggests that they throw water on the fire. The other fireman disagrees and suggests that they throw gasoline on the fire. They "compromise" and decide to throw both water and gasoline on the fire, all in an effort to get "something" done. Though the guy who compromised toward water is now a little more correct, he still throws his share of gasoline on the fire along with his compromise share of water.
The guy who was actually right in the beginning has acquiesced, and is now obligated to throw his compromise share of gasoline on the now raging inferno. The end result is the death of both firemen and an out of control fire that is now left to others to put out.
Had the party who knew he was right stood his ground, both firefighters would still be alive today. Unfortunately, he decided to engage in a "new tone", and by default he compromised his principals and everything he ever leaned about fighting fires. And for what?
He lived in a world where being wrong was no longer something to be embarrassed about. Media outlets commonly gave as much air time to those who were clueless as they did with with those who used common sense. There was no longer shame attached to being wrong. In fact, people were taught at an early age that every one is an equal and criticism is actually "hate speech". So now, even though he was right, it was acceptable in some circles to throw gas on a fire. So the other guy was considered to be equally qualified to make decisions and never questioned, nuch less ridiculed for being an idiot. When he spoke out, he was pressured to give in for the sake of getting something done.
Too bad for us that this mentality has infected our allegedly representative democracy. Our elected officials are more worried about being called a "zealot" or a "partisan" than they are about what actually happens to our country. Standing up for the principals that have a time tested track record of success and prosperity is no longer an option. If it doesn't bring high numbers in a focus group or opinion pole, it doesn't see the light of day.
Why do we do this? Do we ever get anything for our attempts to "reach across the isle"? No. Unless you count a bloody stump. Democrats learned this lesson decades ago, but we continue to insist on taking a punch and asking for another. In an age where it is getting harder and harder to tell a Republican from a Democrat, I can't help but wonder why we even have a party anymore.
Until we are willing to stand up for what we know is right and start dropping some ideological nukes on the liberal establishment, we are going to continue to lose elections and probably the nation as a whole. I'm looking at you John McCain!
Thursday, December 11, 2008
WHAT TO DO WITH MY OLD CHEVY?
Earlier this year I purchased a 72' Chevy pickup that I was hoping to restore. Some of you may recall a previous article I had written about it (GEARHEAD ZEN May 30th). Since then, many things have changed in this country. Not the least of which is the role of our government.
If you take the time to look at our founding documents, you will find many things. You will find a guarantee of your right to live, defend yourself, speak, etc, etc. You will find the limitations of government spelled out in pretty plain terms. You will also find the role that government is supposed to have in our lives written in the plainest of English. What you won't find is document, amendment, or enumerated power that designates our government any right to own, or control a car company. In fact, you will find no shortage of documentation that specifically prevents such things from happening. Despite these facts, the United States government is getting ready to jump head first into the automobile manufacturing business...at our expense of course.
As I made my deliveries last week, I listened to the auto manufacturers make the convoluted cases to Congress for a massive bailout via tax payer dollars. As I listened, I couldn't get past the fact that neither side had one word to say about the actual responsibility of our government. A real Congressman would have stood up and reminded everyone that the government has no legitimate right to get involved in private business matters such as this. He should have suggested that the only thing the government can do to help the car industry is lower taxes and stop trying to tell them what kind of cars they should be making, especially for such a bogus reason as global warming. Any self respecting Congressman would have given the third degree to union reps that were present to give their two cents. After all, it is unions that have caused most of this mess in the first place by making it so expensive to produce an automobile. In fact, this hearing should have never happened in the first place. But it did.
So now I am left with the question of what to do with my old Chevy. My family has owned Chevy's for years and never had a reason to complain. Today, I am embarrassed to have a GM product on my property. The nerve of that company expecting me and my fellow citizens to bail them out because they don't have the cajones to stand up to the unions is just more than I am willing to swallow right now. Will they recognize my contribution to their plight via taxation and send me a crate full of parts for my truck in thanks? No. Will they even send me a Goodwrench gift certificate? No. I/we get to pay for the handiwork of a bunch of UAW babies without so much as a new hood ornament in return.
The long and short of it is, I now get to feel guilty for purchasing more of their parts and eventually driving around in one of their products, or I get to take a bath on what I paid for the truck in the first place in addition to the time I've already invested in it.
All I know is, my other daily drivers (a Hyundai and Toyota) give me successful trips, not guilt trips.
Tuesday, December 2, 2008
ROADHOUSE SOLVES THE PIRATE PROBLEM
Ok, really. Do I have to do everything around here? Is the new wave of modern piracy at sea such a brain teaser of an issue that we actually can't figure out how to stop it? How embarrassing.
This is not rocket science people! Equip ships with one of these, and train the crew to use it. After the first two or three shredded pirates are reported in the media, the concept will look much less appealing to up-and-coming "Jack Sparrows" out there. Problem solved. NEXT!!!
One note of caution. Make sure no one on your ship's crew is named Plaxico.
Monday, December 1, 2008
BROTHER CAN YOU SPARE A GLOCK?
From my "personal anecdote" file: A few weeks ago, I decided that it was time to update my supply of personal firearms. Not because I felt a sudden need to frivolously spend money in the midst of a struggling economy, but because I believe my time to do so is running short. Having seen President-elect Obama's voting record regarding gun ownership, I predict that our Second Amendment right to defend ourselves, our property, and our loved ones will soon be placed firmly on his chopping block, just prior to it's untimely death. If I'm wrong, then I've just spent a pile'O money that wasn't in the budget this month for no reason. If I'm right, then I can tell my grandchildren how I was one of the last people in America to exercise their right to defend themselves. Either way...THANKS A PANTLOAD BARRY!
In my impromptu search for the right guns, I had a few criteria in mind. I knew that I would need to buy a gun that my wife could operate under pressure in the event that we had an "uninvited guest". We both learned this the day that she tried to shoot my .45 semi-auto. You see, like many women, she lacks the upper body strength to rack back a larger caliber firearm, which is a major safety factor. Though she can easily shoot my .22, it lacks the power to knock down an intruder effectively, especially if he's high on meth or something.
I knew I would want something that would have sufficient "knockdown" ability, ease of operation, and yet look intimidating enough to hopefully scare away, or scare into compliance anyone who would break into our home when I'm not there. Of course the predominant factor is the family budget.
Considering these options, I went shopping. To my surprise, I ran into an obstacle immediately...parking. My first stop was a national chain sporting goods store that has served our area for nearly ten years. That day, I could barely find a place to park ye' old SUV. To my surprise, there was no clearance sale or special event planned there for that day. No. As I made my way back the gun department, I was met by a sea of men who apparently read the same tea leaves that I did. Ever the class clown, as I made my way through the crowd, I said loudly "Is this where the Barak Obama fan club meeting is being held?" After the sarcastic laughter died down, I went on looking for the perfect gun for my wife and a new shot gun for myself. This was an exercise in futility because the crowd was so big and the unprepared staff was so few that I knew I would be waiting for at least an hour to even talk to someone behind the counter. Actually buying a gun was that day would be out of the question.
Over the next few days, I searched other stores and scoured the Internet, looking for the models I wanted. Keep in mind, I was not looking for an exotic hard to find firearm. I was looking for two of the most common guns known to man, a shot gun and a small tactical semi-automatic rifle. Everywhere I looked the same three words kept slapping me in the face...out-of-stock.
Eventually, after nearly giving up, I tracked down the guns I was looking for and was even able to get them at a reasonable price. This was no small task either because the price of firearms is going up as the demand for them rises. Like a kid at a candy scramble, I feel I was lucky to get the "candy" I was looking for. If I had been a little slower, I'm sure I would probably have been stuck with the firearm equivalent of those peanuts that are always left on the ground after the children have finished the pillaging of candy thrown from their sadistic parents.
Will my family actually be safe from the criminal element, now that they have an edge against it? I hope we never have to find out.
From my "personal anecdote" file: A few weeks ago, I decided that it was time to update my supply of personal firearms. Not because I felt a sudden need to frivolously spend money in the midst of a struggling economy, but because I believe my time to do so is running short. Having seen President-elect Obama's voting record regarding gun ownership, I predict that our Second Amendment right to defend ourselves, our property, and our loved ones will soon be placed firmly on his chopping block, just prior to it's untimely death. If I'm wrong, then I've just spent a pile'O money that wasn't in the budget this month for no reason. If I'm right, then I can tell my grandchildren how I was one of the last people in America to exercise their right to defend themselves. Either way...THANKS A PANTLOAD BARRY!
In my impromptu search for the right guns, I had a few criteria in mind. I knew that I would need to buy a gun that my wife could operate under pressure in the event that we had an "uninvited guest". We both learned this the day that she tried to shoot my .45 semi-auto. You see, like many women, she lacks the upper body strength to rack back a larger caliber firearm, which is a major safety factor. Though she can easily shoot my .22, it lacks the power to knock down an intruder effectively, especially if he's high on meth or something.
I knew I would want something that would have sufficient "knockdown" ability, ease of operation, and yet look intimidating enough to hopefully scare away, or scare into compliance anyone who would break into our home when I'm not there. Of course the predominant factor is the family budget.
Considering these options, I went shopping. To my surprise, I ran into an obstacle immediately...parking. My first stop was a national chain sporting goods store that has served our area for nearly ten years. That day, I could barely find a place to park ye' old SUV. To my surprise, there was no clearance sale or special event planned there for that day. No. As I made my way back the gun department, I was met by a sea of men who apparently read the same tea leaves that I did. Ever the class clown, as I made my way through the crowd, I said loudly "Is this where the Barak Obama fan club meeting is being held?" After the sarcastic laughter died down, I went on looking for the perfect gun for my wife and a new shot gun for myself. This was an exercise in futility because the crowd was so big and the unprepared staff was so few that I knew I would be waiting for at least an hour to even talk to someone behind the counter. Actually buying a gun was that day would be out of the question.
Over the next few days, I searched other stores and scoured the Internet, looking for the models I wanted. Keep in mind, I was not looking for an exotic hard to find firearm. I was looking for two of the most common guns known to man, a shot gun and a small tactical semi-automatic rifle. Everywhere I looked the same three words kept slapping me in the face...out-of-stock.
Eventually, after nearly giving up, I tracked down the guns I was looking for and was even able to get them at a reasonable price. This was no small task either because the price of firearms is going up as the demand for them rises. Like a kid at a candy scramble, I feel I was lucky to get the "candy" I was looking for. If I had been a little slower, I'm sure I would probably have been stuck with the firearm equivalent of those peanuts that are always left on the ground after the children have finished the pillaging of candy thrown from their sadistic parents.
Will my family actually be safe from the criminal element, now that they have an edge against it? I hope we never have to find out.
Wednesday, November 26, 2008
HAPPY THANKSGIVING!
At this time in my life, I have much to be thankful for. A beautiful wife, a wonderful daughter, and a new baby boy tops the list. Rounding out the top ten are, a job, health, two cars that still run despite assorted rust holes and oil leaks, a house, great neighbors, supportive family and a handful of trusting friends.
Being the night before Thanksgiving reminds me that even though I have less than optimistic view of the future, I need to remember that there are a lot of people who have it a lot worse than I/we do. My cars may be old and rusty, and my house may be small and in constant need of maintenance, but I know that there are people who can only dream of having such luxuries.
So I would like to take this time to wish all my fellow Americans a great Thanksgiving...even you liberals out there. Though I'm sure you libs wouldn't celebrate a holiday that commemorates the corruption and exploitation of Native Americans, I still hope you're able to enjoy a heaping helping of "Tofurkey" and bean sprouts. I wish you nothing but good tidings for your equally represented according to diversity studies and demographic research friends, and good cheer to your "formerly known as family" parental entities who probably oppressed you with their neo-con dogma.
I'm not sure what a liberal would be thankful for, or who they'd be thankful to, but here are some ideas:
1. Bush did not get re-elected to a third term.
2. A man with dark skin is President...because that really matters.
3. Women can still kill their babies.
4. Terrorists will no longer have to endure getting wet.
5. "Earning" money is becoming passe'.
6. That pesky constitution won't get in your way much longer.
7. Meth addicts won't have to fear being shot when they rob and rape your family members much longer.
8. Getting up in the morning to go to work will not be an issue pretty soon.
9. Those evil rich people are finally going to be "getting their's".
10. You can catch up with old friends while standing in the unemployment line.
At this time in my life, I have much to be thankful for. A beautiful wife, a wonderful daughter, and a new baby boy tops the list. Rounding out the top ten are, a job, health, two cars that still run despite assorted rust holes and oil leaks, a house, great neighbors, supportive family and a handful of trusting friends.
Being the night before Thanksgiving reminds me that even though I have less than optimistic view of the future, I need to remember that there are a lot of people who have it a lot worse than I/we do. My cars may be old and rusty, and my house may be small and in constant need of maintenance, but I know that there are people who can only dream of having such luxuries.
So I would like to take this time to wish all my fellow Americans a great Thanksgiving...even you liberals out there. Though I'm sure you libs wouldn't celebrate a holiday that commemorates the corruption and exploitation of Native Americans, I still hope you're able to enjoy a heaping helping of "Tofurkey" and bean sprouts. I wish you nothing but good tidings for your equally represented according to diversity studies and demographic research friends, and good cheer to your "formerly known as family" parental entities who probably oppressed you with their neo-con dogma.
I'm not sure what a liberal would be thankful for, or who they'd be thankful to, but here are some ideas:
1. Bush did not get re-elected to a third term.
2. A man with dark skin is President...because that really matters.
3. Women can still kill their babies.
4. Terrorists will no longer have to endure getting wet.
5. "Earning" money is becoming passe'.
6. That pesky constitution won't get in your way much longer.
7. Meth addicts won't have to fear being shot when they rob and rape your family members much longer.
8. Getting up in the morning to go to work will not be an issue pretty soon.
9. Those evil rich people are finally going to be "getting their's".
10. You can catch up with old friends while standing in the unemployment line.
Thursday, November 20, 2008
UNHOLY UNIONS
Once upon a time, our nation was smack in the middle of an economic revolution. New inventions, and technologies were developing practically by the hour. Couple that with a mass influx of immigrant labor to meet the increasing demand and the end result was an industrial community that was virtually un-regulated and a labor force that was ripe for exploitation. With no labor laws or regulations to protect the worker, the American worker had little-to-no way to obtain justice in the event they were injured or taken advantage of by employers.
To remedy this, the labor force organized and formed unions to give them leverage and a political voice. Eventually, the work of unions lead to legislation that provided safety regulations and a whole host of laws and agencies that provided the worker with some recourse for justice and a generally better work environment. This of coarse is a very basic explanation of the original purpose of labor unions.
In the year 2008, now that the American worker has the luxury of a list of options to find justice in the workplace, unions have all but run out of legitimate things to complain about. In stead, today they spend much of their time bullying corporations into giving them yet another week of vacation per year or adding aroma therapy treatment to their health care plan. Essentially, unions have gone from providing workers with a sorely needed path to justice, to transforming the once proud American work force into a bunch of cry-babies that think bullying is a legitimate method of problem solving.
Personally, I think it boils down to differing philosophies. One philosophy tells us that when a man opens a business, it is his business. He is the one who makes the daily decisions of how the business is operated. Who to hire, and who to fire... How much to pay, and why... And what benefits (if any) are supposed to be the decision of the owner. An employee has the right to work for that individual and the right to quit as well. As far as "collective bargaining" is concerned, the employee has the right to accept the wage offered under the terms presented or go else wear to work. Considering that the employer has to abide by the labor laws of the land, and the employee has the right to quit, file charges or litigate in the event of a dispute, this philosophy puts the prerogatives in their proper place.
The free market likes this philosophy because it provides it's own natural boundaries. If an employer treats his workers too poorly, he will find it hard to keep his doors open due to being sued, prosecuted, or plagued by bad publicity.
The union philosophy is much different. After having NOT taken the financial, and personal risks and sacrifices involved in starting a company, unions seem to be under the impression that they are entitled to make the business decisions at that company. If the owner of that company disagrees, the unions simply strike until they get what they want. Much like a baby throwing a tantrum until they get a bowl of gummy bears for breakfast, unions see no problem with irrational behavior or even good old fashioned bullying to get their way.
If an employer has enough and hires outside of the union, he runs the risk of litigation and even violent confrontations on the picket line. On his own property no less!
Probably the most frustrating thing about unions is the irony of their existence. The present day purpose of unions is to gain higher wages and more benefits from the employer. The problem is that the end result of union intervention commonly leads to what we see today in the auto industry...failure.
You see, the point of owning a business is to make money. When that is no longer possible, there is no longer a reason to keep the doors open. Part of making money is finding the correct balance between your cost of operating and your profit. Here comes the irony.
Unions tend to drive up the cost of operating the business while simultaneously driving down quality and production.
Think about it. How long can any company expect to remain profitable when unions continually force them to pay out more in benefits and wages, while demanding that the employees do ONLY what their contracts call for? It is not unusual for a typical union worker to have a minimum of five weeks vacation per year and pension plan that allows them to retire five to ten years earlier than employees of non union companies. This is all hashed out in negotiations between labor and management, all at great legal expense to the company. Yet union workers are always the most surprised when the company they work for ends up shutting down or going out of business all together. Basically, they end up "demanding" themselves right out of a job.
Then there is the general mediocrity that union labor generates. When you know getting fired will require your boss to jump over a whole marathon of legal and procedural hurdles, you tend to not worry so much about the quality or quantity of your production responsibilities. Compound that attitude company wide and your product can only suffer. Plus, with more money going to union demanded benfits and wages, there is less money to be put into research and development of the company product. Pretty good deal for the competition huh?
Let's not forget the political angle. Unions can always be counted on to support Democrat candidates, regardless of how the union worker or employer happens to feel. Did I mention that unions support these candidates with the dues these workers pay and by propagandising them in the workplace? That's fine as long as you're a union worker that happens to be a liberal Democrat. That's also fine as long as these union supported candidates don't draft legislation that will harm your company's profitability. You know, like higher taxes or more regulations. There's nothing like having union dues taken out of your pocket, only to have them given to the guy who is going to take more money out of your pocket via taxation. That's kinda like paying someone to rob you every two weeks.
These are just some of the finer bullet points of why unions are ruining industry in this nation, but trust me, there are plenty more where they came from. For now, remember to look for the union label. That way you'll know what products not to buy.
Once upon a time, our nation was smack in the middle of an economic revolution. New inventions, and technologies were developing practically by the hour. Couple that with a mass influx of immigrant labor to meet the increasing demand and the end result was an industrial community that was virtually un-regulated and a labor force that was ripe for exploitation. With no labor laws or regulations to protect the worker, the American worker had little-to-no way to obtain justice in the event they were injured or taken advantage of by employers.
To remedy this, the labor force organized and formed unions to give them leverage and a political voice. Eventually, the work of unions lead to legislation that provided safety regulations and a whole host of laws and agencies that provided the worker with some recourse for justice and a generally better work environment. This of coarse is a very basic explanation of the original purpose of labor unions.
In the year 2008, now that the American worker has the luxury of a list of options to find justice in the workplace, unions have all but run out of legitimate things to complain about. In stead, today they spend much of their time bullying corporations into giving them yet another week of vacation per year or adding aroma therapy treatment to their health care plan. Essentially, unions have gone from providing workers with a sorely needed path to justice, to transforming the once proud American work force into a bunch of cry-babies that think bullying is a legitimate method of problem solving.
Personally, I think it boils down to differing philosophies. One philosophy tells us that when a man opens a business, it is his business. He is the one who makes the daily decisions of how the business is operated. Who to hire, and who to fire... How much to pay, and why... And what benefits (if any) are supposed to be the decision of the owner. An employee has the right to work for that individual and the right to quit as well. As far as "collective bargaining" is concerned, the employee has the right to accept the wage offered under the terms presented or go else wear to work. Considering that the employer has to abide by the labor laws of the land, and the employee has the right to quit, file charges or litigate in the event of a dispute, this philosophy puts the prerogatives in their proper place.
The free market likes this philosophy because it provides it's own natural boundaries. If an employer treats his workers too poorly, he will find it hard to keep his doors open due to being sued, prosecuted, or plagued by bad publicity.
The union philosophy is much different. After having NOT taken the financial, and personal risks and sacrifices involved in starting a company, unions seem to be under the impression that they are entitled to make the business decisions at that company. If the owner of that company disagrees, the unions simply strike until they get what they want. Much like a baby throwing a tantrum until they get a bowl of gummy bears for breakfast, unions see no problem with irrational behavior or even good old fashioned bullying to get their way.
If an employer has enough and hires outside of the union, he runs the risk of litigation and even violent confrontations on the picket line. On his own property no less!
Probably the most frustrating thing about unions is the irony of their existence. The present day purpose of unions is to gain higher wages and more benefits from the employer. The problem is that the end result of union intervention commonly leads to what we see today in the auto industry...failure.
You see, the point of owning a business is to make money. When that is no longer possible, there is no longer a reason to keep the doors open. Part of making money is finding the correct balance between your cost of operating and your profit. Here comes the irony.
Unions tend to drive up the cost of operating the business while simultaneously driving down quality and production.
Think about it. How long can any company expect to remain profitable when unions continually force them to pay out more in benefits and wages, while demanding that the employees do ONLY what their contracts call for? It is not unusual for a typical union worker to have a minimum of five weeks vacation per year and pension plan that allows them to retire five to ten years earlier than employees of non union companies. This is all hashed out in negotiations between labor and management, all at great legal expense to the company. Yet union workers are always the most surprised when the company they work for ends up shutting down or going out of business all together. Basically, they end up "demanding" themselves right out of a job.
Then there is the general mediocrity that union labor generates. When you know getting fired will require your boss to jump over a whole marathon of legal and procedural hurdles, you tend to not worry so much about the quality or quantity of your production responsibilities. Compound that attitude company wide and your product can only suffer. Plus, with more money going to union demanded benfits and wages, there is less money to be put into research and development of the company product. Pretty good deal for the competition huh?
Let's not forget the political angle. Unions can always be counted on to support Democrat candidates, regardless of how the union worker or employer happens to feel. Did I mention that unions support these candidates with the dues these workers pay and by propagandising them in the workplace? That's fine as long as you're a union worker that happens to be a liberal Democrat. That's also fine as long as these union supported candidates don't draft legislation that will harm your company's profitability. You know, like higher taxes or more regulations. There's nothing like having union dues taken out of your pocket, only to have them given to the guy who is going to take more money out of your pocket via taxation. That's kinda like paying someone to rob you every two weeks.
These are just some of the finer bullet points of why unions are ruining industry in this nation, but trust me, there are plenty more where they came from. For now, remember to look for the union label. That way you'll know what products not to buy.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
